Minimizing Glovebox Glove Breaches: PART II.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
As a matter of good business practices, a team of glovebox experts from Los Alamos National Laboratory (LANL) has been assembled to proactively investigate processes and procedures that minimize unplanned breaches in the glovebox, e.g., glove failures. A major part of this effort involves the review of glovebox glove failures that have occurred at the Plutonium Facility and at the Chemical and Metallurgy Research Facility. Information dating back to 1993 has been compiled from formal records. This data has been combined with information obtained from a baseline inventory of about 9,000 glovebox gloves. The key attributes tracked include those related to location, the glovebox glove, type and location of breaches, the worker, and the consequences resulting from breaches. This glovebox glove failure analysis yielded results in the areas of the ease of collecting this type of data, the causes of most glove failures that have occurred, the effectiveness of current controls, and recommendations to improve hazard control systems. As expected, a significant number of breaches involve high-risk operations such as grinding, hammering, using sharps (especially screwdrivers), and assembling equipment. Surprisingly, tasks such as the movement of equipment and material between gloveboxes and the opening of cans are also major contributions of breaches. Almost half the gloves fail within a year of their install date. The greatest consequence for over 90% of glovebox glove failures is alpha contamination of protective clothing. Personnel self-monitoring at the gloveboxes continues to be the most effective way of detecting glovebox glove failures. Glove failures from these tasks can be reduced through changes in procedures and the design of remote-handling apparatus. The Nuclear Materials Technology Division management uses this information to improve hazard control systems to reduce the number of unplanned breaches in the glovebox further. As a result, excursions of contaminants into the operator's breathing zone and excess exposure to the radiological sources associated with unplanned breaches in the glovebox have been minimized. In conclusion, investigations of control failures, near misses, and accidents contribute to an organization's scientific and technological excellence by providing information that can be used to increase its operational safety.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".